NO TIME TO DIE (2021) - First Reactions vs. Current Reactions

12526283031298

Comments

  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,958
    It would be cool if they kicked it off like TMWTGG novel. A man claiming to be James Bond shows up at MI6, everyone in disbelief because they think he’s dead. Bond then tries to assassinate M. Just go full crazy town!

    However, in that instance I would actually bring back Fleming’s MI6 crew with Miles M, Major Boothroyd, etc. Heck, make Mary Goodnight a recurring character standing in for Moneypenny’s role.
  • Posts: 2,400
    Given it was Craig’s last film, I think they regarded its impact at the box office as an acceptable risk, at least pre-pandemic. Might be as well swing for the fences.

    I’d say you’re correct. But you know The Last Jedi had to come up in the conversation. It was a calculated risk for sure. I think word of mouth will hurt their box office. Looks like Rotten Tomatoes is going to end up in the 70s (critics), which isn’t great. RT has a pretty big impact in the states.

    THE LAST JEDI was at least worth it. I hope this film is as good as that.

    As someone who adores The Last Jedi and rates it the exact same score as No Time to Die (9.5/10), I have a feeling you'll be very happy with NTTD if you like TLJ. I initially gave TLJ a 10/10 but some minor issues on repeat viewings resulted in me taking off half a point; if the same should happen with NTTD, that's more than alright, but I have the strangest feeling the opposite is more likely once I see it a second and third time next week.
  • Posts: 503
    I wonder how much discussion there was about what they did to Bond in the end? Does anyone know who pushed that idea? Did they consider that it might divide the fan base and hurt the box office? Just thinking out loud.

    Well we know now that the rumors about Danny Boyle leaving the project because of the fact that the producers wanted to "kill off Bond" were 100% true... so this has been in the works for a while. The producers were dedicated enough to the idea that they were willing to fire Danny Boyle over it. So yeah, they didn't "consider" shit.

    Here's the 2018 article from The Sun that was brushed off as tabloid B.S. at the time:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/7102013/danny-boyle-quit-james-bond-franchise-in-a-row-over-offing-the-super-spy-in-dramatic-finale-to-the-25th-film/
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 972
    imranbecks wrote: »
    I wonder how much discussion there was about what they did to Bond in the end? Does anyone know who pushed that idea? Did they consider that it might divide the fan base and hurt the box office? Just thinking out loud.

    Exactly. Why did they even have to go that route? Was it really necessary. I'm just questioning the future of the franchise now. I can't stand another reboot tbh. Do we really have to see how Bond got his license to kill again? Just like how many times Spider-Man got rebooted, it can get pretty tiresome. But I liked the way Marvel handled it from the start when Andrew Garfield took over the role though. But I don't know, with Bond, another fresh start... Hmmmm... Is that where its headed..

    I doubt they’ll do another origin story.

    We’ll likely jump mid-career with the new Bond, just like it was done with Ben Affleck’s Batman and Tom Holland’s Spider-Man. It’s pretty simple.

    Yes. I meant to say Tom Holland in my post.. Not Andrew Garfield. The way Marvel handled Holland as Spider-Man was my thinking for the new Bond. But its gonna be a mess though especially if they retain the same actors for M, Q and Moneypenny. Will be one heck of a mind trip that's for sure.
  • imranbecksimranbecks Singapore
    Posts: 972
    Bond wrote: »
    I wonder how much discussion there was about what they did to Bond in the end? Does anyone know who pushed that idea? Did they consider that it might divide the fan base and hurt the box office? Just thinking out loud.

    Well we know now that the rumors about Danny Boyle leaving the project because of the fact that the producers wanted to "kill off Bond" were 100% true... so this has been in the works for a while. The producers were dedicated enough to the idea that they were willing to fire Danny Boyle over it. So yeah, they didn't "consider" shit.

    Here's the 2018 article from The Sun that was brushed off as tabloid B.S. at the time:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/7102013/danny-boyle-quit-james-bond-franchise-in-a-row-over-offing-the-super-spy-in-dramatic-finale-to-the-25th-film/

    Wow. Suddenly that doesn't seem so much of a BS. I don't blame Danny Boyle for leaving. I would've done the same thing. Only thing I hated was the ending.

    IMO, Barbara and Michael are putting themselves in a rough spot with that ending. Very bold. Very ambitious.
  • Posts: 526

    Given it was Craig’s last film, I think they regarded its impact at the box office as an acceptable risk, at least pre-pandemic. Might be as well swing for the fences.

    I’d say you’re correct. But you know The Last Jedi had to come up in the conversation. It was a calculated risk for sure. I think word of mouth will hurt their box office. Looks like Rotten Tomatoes is going to end up in the 70s (critics), which isn’t great. RT has a pretty big impact in the states.

    THE LAST JEDI was at least worth it. I hope this film is as good as that.

    As someone who adores The Last Jedi and rates it the exact same score as No Time to Die (9.5/10), I have a feeling you'll be very happy with NTTD if you like TLJ. I initially gave TLJ a 10/10 but some minor issues on repeat viewings resulted in me taking off half a point; if the same should happen with NTTD, that's more than alright, but I have the strangest feeling the opposite is more likely once I see it a second and third time next week.

    So, let’s say that someone despised the Last Jedi. Gives it a 1/10 for example (not myself, just being hypothetical), how do you think they’d react to NTTD I’d they were a huge fan of Bond?
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 573
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    DCisared wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    *Spoiler tag for the end of the film. If you haven't seen it, please I beg you don't click on the tag
    I'd hate to ruin this for anyone

    Just got back from seeing NTTD...
    That's the first time I've seen a film on opening night were the entire audience booed Bond's demise. Quite a few left before the film's last line

    Truthfully I'm underwhelmed
    They could have given me a mixture of From Russia With Love and Casino Royale, I would still walk away unsatisfied with that ending. I haven't processed the film properly yet admittedly, but upon initial viewing I feel betrayed as a fan of James Bond

    Where did you watch mate? Was in Manchester yesterday and no booing everyone just looked shell shocked. Watching in speke later on though so be interesting to see if the booing is a Merseyside thing lol it's certainly how I feel about it.

    The odeon in Bromborough on the Wirral mate (Not far from were Daniel grew up)

    I'll be honest, I wouldn't boo it, there was a lot of amazing stuff in it but that ending didn't sit well with me. I was one of the only ones left in the theater patiently waiting for James Bond Will Return. More than 3/4 left before Madeline's final line

    It was alright in Liverpool imax too. None of people booing or leaving. Just shell shock and me crying!!
    I think what's upsetting me here is people gatekeeping other fans... please don't. We can like or dislike what we want. It doesn't make someone more or less of a fan. I'm sure we've all read Fleming, watched the other movies too, among other resources. It's simply wrong as I think you can argue either way that some of the things that happen in this movie could be considered within the confines of what Fleming wrote.

    This movie is like marmite but please don't question how much someone loves James Bond because of their preference as thats why people are here. He's been a part of me since my childhood and I've carried that for thirty years. I'm sure you all have similar stories too.
    I enjoyed the movie and would have changed the ending but it didn't completely ruin the movie for me either.
  • Posts: 2,400
    Given it was Craig’s last film, I think they regarded its impact at the box office as an acceptable risk, at least pre-pandemic. Might be as well swing for the fences.

    I’d say you’re correct. But you know The Last Jedi had to come up in the conversation. It was a calculated risk for sure. I think word of mouth will hurt their box office. Looks like Rotten Tomatoes is going to end up in the 70s (critics), which isn’t great. RT has a pretty big impact in the states.

    THE LAST JEDI was at least worth it. I hope this film is as good as that.

    As someone who adores The Last Jedi and rates it the exact same score as No Time to Die (9.5/10), I have a feeling you'll be very happy with NTTD if you like TLJ. I initially gave TLJ a 10/10 but some minor issues on repeat viewings resulted in me taking off half a point; if the same should happen with NTTD, that's more than alright, but I have the strangest feeling the opposite is more likely once I see it a second and third time next week.

    So, let’s say that someone despised the Last Jedi. Gives it a 1/10 for example (not myself, just being hypothetical), how do you think they’d react to NTTD I’d they were a huge fan of Bond?

    That's harder for me to figure out mainly because I haven't been able to really understand why the TLJ haters, uh... hate it :)) I know that's kind of a cop out, but what I was getting at more about people who love TLJ potentially loving NTTD is that I find people who love TLJ are okay with their franchises doing something different, and NTTD definitely does that.
  • Posts: 3,210
    Saw it last night. I have very mixed feelings about it.

    Action - superb. Probably the best we've seen in the series.
    Plot - fairly decent, keeps in line with Bond traditions
    Craig - nails it, knocks it out of the park with his performance.

    BUT (and a big but)....

    The ending. I've never felt this disappointed watching a movie. It kills everything that was great leading up to it. So unnecessary. Cubby will be turning in his grave at what they've done to his franchise.

    Why couldn't they have just had the balls to continue with the YOLT storyline right to the end. An amnesia ridden Bond, not knowing anymore who he is, lost and sailing off to Russia. That would still have given them the shock tragedy ending they were looking for, instead of the stupid dumbass thing they've done instead. You don't kill off a cash cow like this. There is nowhere to go now.

    The franchise needs a serious overhaul after this, a complete reboot, including the backroom team, because they have clearly run out of steam.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 3,210
    imranbecks wrote: »
    Bond wrote: »
    I wonder how much discussion there was about what they did to Bond in the end? Does anyone know who pushed that idea? Did they consider that it might divide the fan base and hurt the box office? Just thinking out loud.

    Well we know now that the rumors about Danny Boyle leaving the project because of the fact that the producers wanted to "kill off Bond" were 100% true... so this has been in the works for a while. The producers were dedicated enough to the idea that they were willing to fire Danny Boyle over it. So yeah, they didn't "consider" shit.

    Here's the 2018 article from The Sun that was brushed off as tabloid B.S. at the time:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/7102013/danny-boyle-quit-james-bond-franchise-in-a-row-over-offing-the-super-spy-in-dramatic-finale-to-the-25th-film/

    Wow. Suddenly that doesn't seem so much of a BS. I don't blame Danny Boyle for leaving. I would've done the same thing. Only thing I hated was the ending.

    IMO, Barbara and Michael are putting themselves in a rough spot with that ending. Very bold. Very ambitious.

    Its the dumbest thing they've done to the franchise. How do you reboot now with a new actor? The film series has now lost all credibility in doing this.

    Does Bond miraculously turn up in the next one like nothing happened? At least if they followed the YOLT ending (which is just as dramatic and tragic), there was a way to continue with the next film with TMWTGG opening.

    I'm so angry at the ending. They've killed the franchise. They've killed the legacy. Fleming tried a couple of times but did just enough to leave the door open. Babs and co. should have followed this if they wanted to go down such a brave route.
  • Posts: 3,210
    It would be cool if they kicked it off like TMWTGG novel. A man claiming to be James Bond shows up at MI6, everyone in disbelief because they think he’s dead. Bond then tries to assassinate M. Just go full crazy town!

    However, in that instance I would actually bring back Fleming’s MI6 crew with Miles M, Major Boothroyd, etc. Heck, make Mary Goodnight a recurring character standing in for Moneypenny’s role.

    This is the only way they can start the next film.
  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    jerome007 wrote: »
    My confusion lies in the fact that Mr White said his wife left him in Spectre. Madeleine failed to mention her mother was killed by Safin when telling Bond the story about finding the gun under the sink. But did say mother & father went back to Le Americain every year after they divorced. Doesn’t make sense. Also unless Mr White remarried I always assumed the woman he was with at the Opera in QOS was his wife. My head is spinning. Am I missing something? It’s late and I’m probably overthinking this 😁

    The woman at the opera is credited as his “girlfriend”.
    The one coming back to the Tangier hotel was just Mr. White.
    Makes sense to me that both father and daughter kept the truth about the mother to themselves. You don’t tell this sort of tragic traumatic things to strangers. Bond is even an enemy/assassin…
  • Posts: 2,400
    imranbecks wrote: »
    Bond wrote: »
    I wonder how much discussion there was about what they did to Bond in the end? Does anyone know who pushed that idea? Did they consider that it might divide the fan base and hurt the box office? Just thinking out loud.

    Well we know now that the rumors about Danny Boyle leaving the project because of the fact that the producers wanted to "kill off Bond" were 100% true... so this has been in the works for a while. The producers were dedicated enough to the idea that they were willing to fire Danny Boyle over it. So yeah, they didn't "consider" shit.

    Here's the 2018 article from The Sun that was brushed off as tabloid B.S. at the time:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/7102013/danny-boyle-quit-james-bond-franchise-in-a-row-over-offing-the-super-spy-in-dramatic-finale-to-the-25th-film/

    Wow. Suddenly that doesn't seem so much of a BS. I don't blame Danny Boyle for leaving. I would've done the same thing. Only thing I hated was the ending.

    IMO, Barbara and Michael are putting themselves in a rough spot with that ending. Very bold. Very ambitious.

    Its the dumbest thing they've done to the franchise. How do you reboot now with a new actor? The film series has now lost all credibility in doing this.

    Does Bond miraculously turn up in the next one like nothing happened? At least if they followed the YOLT ending (which is just as dramatic and tragic), there was a way to continue with the next film with TMWTGG opening.

    I'm so angry at the ending. They've killed the franchise. They've killed the legacy. Fleming tried a couple of times but did just enough to leave the door open. Babs and co. should have followed this if they wanted to go down such a brave route.

    You literally just reboot the series with the next actor playing Bond and believe that the audience has the basic intelligence to understand that the Craig Bond films were their own continuity. It really is not difficult.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited October 2021 Posts: 7,958
    .
  • Posts: 207
    The ending. I've never felt this disappointed watching a movie. It kills everything that was great leading up to it. So unnecessary. Cubby will be turning in his grave at what they've done to his franchise.
    This is my biggest fear. When I go to watch the film, I have this bad feeling that no matter how hard I try to enjoy everything leading up to the ending, I'm just going to be disappointed when the credits roll.

    Still going to watch it as soon as possible (and probably multiple times, let's be real) but I'm going in with extremely low expectations because I don't think I'm going to fully enjoy the movie no matter how hard I try.

    On the other hand, maybe it was for the best that I was spoiled the ending. I can't even imagine what a gut punch it would have been for me to watch it not knowing that was coming.
  • Posts: 3,210
    imranbecks wrote: »
    I wonder how much discussion there was about what they did to Bond in the end? Does anyone know who pushed that idea? Did they consider that it might divide the fan base and hurt the box office? Just thinking out loud.

    Exactly. Why did they even have to go that route? Was it really necessary. I'm just questioning the future of the franchise now. I can't stand another reboot tbh. Do we really have to see how Bond got his license to kill again? Just like how many times Spider-Man got rebooted, it can get pretty tiresome. But I liked the way Marvel handled it from the start when Andrew Garfield took over the role though. But I don't know, with Bond, another fresh start... Hmmmm... Is that where its headed..
    Hopefully they did it with a business plan in mind, and not just as a creative indulgence for 2 or 3 people.

    This is what it feels like after watching it. They didn't think that far ahead, or they would have used the ending to YOLT. At least it still gave them the shock tragedy ending, but left the door open for the next film and next actor.

    It's almost as if Babs was so sold on Craig being her Bond, she couldn't see a future after his departure, so decided to burn it all to the ground in bitter anger.
  • Just feels like too much indulgence to what the actor wanted over the franchise. As Craig's stock rose the influence over the characters direction did as well. He got to come back and do what he wanted with the character. Great, but what about afterwards?
  • Posts: 3,210
    imranbecks wrote: »
    Bond wrote: »
    I wonder how much discussion there was about what they did to Bond in the end? Does anyone know who pushed that idea? Did they consider that it might divide the fan base and hurt the box office? Just thinking out loud.

    Well we know now that the rumors about Danny Boyle leaving the project because of the fact that the producers wanted to "kill off Bond" were 100% true... so this has been in the works for a while. The producers were dedicated enough to the idea that they were willing to fire Danny Boyle over it. So yeah, they didn't "consider" shit.

    Here's the 2018 article from The Sun that was brushed off as tabloid B.S. at the time:

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/7102013/danny-boyle-quit-james-bond-franchise-in-a-row-over-offing-the-super-spy-in-dramatic-finale-to-the-25th-film/

    Wow. Suddenly that doesn't seem so much of a BS. I don't blame Danny Boyle for leaving. I would've done the same thing. Only thing I hated was the ending.

    IMO, Barbara and Michael are putting themselves in a rough spot with that ending. Very bold. Very ambitious.

    Its the dumbest thing they've done to the franchise. How do you reboot now with a new actor? The film series has now lost all credibility in doing this.

    Does Bond miraculously turn up in the next one like nothing happened? At least if they followed the YOLT ending (which is just as dramatic and tragic), there was a way to continue with the next film with TMWTGG opening.

    I'm so angry at the ending. They've killed the franchise. They've killed the legacy. Fleming tried a couple of times but did just enough to leave the door open. Babs and co. should have followed this if they wanted to go down such a brave route.

    You literally just reboot the series with the next actor playing Bond and believe that the audience has the basic intelligence to understand that the Craig Bond films were their own continuity. It really is not difficult.

    It's something that didn't need to happen. There was another way of ending this in giving us the ending to YOLT. It was have tied up the Craig era nicely, starting with the Fleming origin story in CR, and ending it with YOLT (which was the closest we ever get to that kind of finale). They already started using material from that book, why not go the whole way?

    It still would have been a sad and tragic ending, and still would have remained faithful to Fleming - yet still would have left the door open for a new actor.

    Now we are back in another reboot territory again, only this time pissing off a lot of fans in what they've done with NTTD. Totally unnecessary.
  • edited October 2021 Posts: 822
    Zarozzor wrote: »
    On the other hand, maybe it was for the best that I was spoiled the ending. I can't even imagine what a gut punch it would have been for me to watch it not knowing that was coming.

    This is exactly why I spoiled it for myself going in. If they didn't do it, I'd have been able to really enjoy the film, and at least I don't have to be disappointed in the moment this way.

  • Posts: 3,210
    Zarozzor wrote: »

    On the other hand, maybe it was for the best that I was spoiled the ending. I can't even imagine what a gut punch it would have been for me to watch it not knowing that was coming.

    That's how it felt last night, as I had convinced myself they were going with the YOLT ending. I never thought they would do this. It's made my so pissed off, that I'm actually now finding it hard to like any of the Craig era because of this. Irrational I know, and hopefully I calm down in a year or two.

  • matt_umatt_u better known as Mr. Roark
    Posts: 4,343
    Zekidk wrote: »
    Primo. I'm confused here. So in Matera he is working for Blofeld, but later for Safin. Maybe I dozed off, but where/when did he change sides?

    He was hired by Safin after the Cuba massacre. That’s what is implied in the film.

    Two questions:

    So Swann big super hyped secret is that she had this encounter with the masked man? Doesn’t make sense given the fact that we know that from the very start. The true revelation, her secret is that she has Bond’s daughter. In some ways that is the secret that ultimately paves the way to his death…

    What are those workers in red doing at the base? I get they work to produce a massive amount of this weapon but… how? All that poison garden stuff was pretty confused and pointless but maybe I missed something… why Blofeld wanted this garden from Safin’s dad?
  • Posts: 3,210
    fernadez wrote: »
    Just feels like too much indulgence to what the actor wanted over the franchise. As Craig's stock rose the influence over the characters direction did as well. He got to come back and do what he wanted with the character. Great, but what about afterwards?

    I think you are right. I could never imagine Dalton, Brozza or Moore trying to pull this stunt. It's like Craig made sure he made it almost impossible for the series to continue in the normal fashion after one actor leaves and another starts.
  • Posts: 207
    Zarozzor wrote: »

    On the other hand, maybe it was for the best that I was spoiled the ending. I can't even imagine what a gut punch it would have been for me to watch it not knowing that was coming.

    That's how it felt last night, as I had convinced myself they were going with the YOLT ending. I never thought they would do this. It's made my so pissed off, that I'm actually now finding it hard to like any of the Craig era because of this. Irrational I know, and hopefully I calm down in a year or two.
    When I heard how he dies, I was in disbelief that was how they did it. They really did have a golden opportunity to use the YOLT ending and decided to go in another direction.
  • Posts: 526
    Birdleson wrote: »
    Univex wrote: »
    I didn't even know we were having that discussion. I was under the impression we were talking about Bond being a womaniser and about the sexiness in the films.

    I have no problem with broader representations, and the inclusion of gay characters. I thought that wasn't even a discussion.

    And about that "wokeness" thing or the feminist agenda, I didn't feel it in the film. Not at all.

    That being said, gone is much of the sexiness oriented for the heterosexual males who got into Bond because of it, amongst other reasons. I thought this was the discussion we were having. The Nolan films, for example, are known to have no sexiness at all.

    I guess I was mistaken, and took part in a discussion I didn't know was getting on.

    My bad. Carry on.


    I fell in love with the books and films as a young boy, and Bond will always work best for me when that boyhood's adventure quality shines through. A big part of that, for me, will always be The Bond Girls and the fantasy world that they exist in (secondary to the interplay with his adversaries, of course). I do feel that these latest films aren't made for me, but that's how I've felt about the world fro quite a few years now. I'm about seven years away from retirement, and when I get there I see myself stepping back from most of society (I'm looking to buy a decent amount of property out in the woods of Upstate NY), focusing on my surviving friends, and basically regaling in the music, films and books of my past.
    Sounds like a great plan. Peace and tranquility ...and Bond! Can’t go wrong with that. Do you think any of Craig’s movies are like Risico? I live out in a rural area, very few people around, and we enjoy it. Lots of peace and quiet.

    It's so funny that you would ask that question as I thought for ages that if they were ever going to make Risico (and I get that a lot of it was morphed into FYEO, but still), Craig was the actor to do it with.

    Yes!! I kept hoping and hoping to see DC in a Risico movie. Just wasn’t in the cards I guess. One of the coolest names in the Bond universe , plus a great story. With some extra ingredients, and reworking, I think it could have been one of the best Bonds ever. Even if they just used the name, and not the original concept, but maybe a generalization of it. I hate the name No Time To Die (which was a lie-no rhyme intended).
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 573
    For the record I spoiled myself too and was glad. I'd have been a bigger wreck had I not known.

    However, I went in expecting to hate the film. I was absolutely livid and dreaded going. Then I went and I changed my mind. I really enjoyed the movie and even though the ending isn't to my taste it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. Your mileage will vary!

    As for how they move on... it's just like any other franchise where they cast a new bloke. It's Bond and I think general pop who are not fans know this by now. I'm not sure what's hard to understand about it. We've been doing that for the past 60 years. Who is to say that bond doesn't drive off in one of the happier endings of a final outing and gets hit by a bus? He's human so he's capable of dying. That's life. I don't like that we saw it on screen but I'd say dying in service is a distinct possibility off screen too. Hopefully this helps to wrap your head around it. If not I'm not sure what to tell you other than James Bond will return...
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 7,958
    You don't kill off a cash cow like this. There is nowhere to go now.

    The franchise needs a serious overhaul after this, a complete reboot, including the backroom team, because they have clearly run out of steam.

    This really a question directed at those who hold these sentiments rather than just you @jetsetwilly : Did you honestly believe that the next Bond actor would continue the version of Bond played by Craig, like how it used to be in the old days from Sean to Roger etc?

    If you had that expectation cemented in, I can now understand the confusion and frustration. Personally, I had already prepared myself for the idea that Craig’s run would be completely self contained and not have any carry over so that Craig’s version would have a definitive ending. No more Ralph Fiennes, no more Naomie Harris, Ben Whishaw, etc. I never expected any of this cast to play the role until they literally dropped dead like Bernard Lee and Desmond Llewelyn.
  • Posts: 526
    imranbecks wrote: »
    For those that have seen NTTD: how many times do you plan on watching it?

    After the shocking ending and walking out of the cinema still feeling shocked by it all, at the time I had no intention of seeing it again. No joke, that ending really got to me. But I woke up this morning feeling much better than I did yesterday when I came home, so maybe I'll go see it another couple of times at least.
    I’m in the states, and I’m firmly against seeing it. I’ve made up my mind, 85%, that I’m not going to watch it. And I’d consider myself a Craig is Bond Superfan. All the posters, movies, much memorabilia, etc. I’ve seen Casino Royale 219 times. Just not ready to give up that character. I can live with the Spectre ending. How did the crowd there react to the ending?
  • Posts: 207
    You don't kill off a cash cow like this. There is nowhere to go now.

    The franchise needs a serious overhaul after this, a complete reboot, including the backroom team, because they have clearly run out of steam.

    This really a question directed at those who hold these sentiments rather than just you @jetsetwilly : Did you honestly believe that the next Bond actor would continue the version of Bond played by Craig, like how it used to be in the old days from Sean to Roger etc?

    If you had that expectation cemented in, I can now understand the confusion and frustration. Personally, I had already prepared myself for the idea that Craig’s run would be completely self contained and not have any carry over so that Craig’s version would have a definitive ending. No more Ralph Fiennes, no more Naomie Harris, Ben Whishaw, etc. I never expected any of this cast to play the role until they literally dropped dead like Bernard Lee and Desmond Llewelyn.

    I knew it was a possibility going in considering the whole Craig self contained angle. But the way they did it has just rubbed me the wrong way. A missile obliterating him from almost a POV angle of what he’s seeing? If they really wanted to go this route, I personally believe that a YOLT type of ending would have been satisfactory to more fans. Reading around various Bond forums, it seems that the fan base is around a 50/50 split about the way they did it.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 573
    I imagine there was never going to be a one size fits all ending for everyone.

    Had bond escaped without being infected people would complain that he's gone to be a dad and live with his family.

    Had bond managed to escape and get amnesia then everyone he touches gets infected and eventually madeleine and mathilde die. People would complain then too.

    Instead bond dies and people complain anyway. I'd be interested to see the correlation between people who dislike the daughter aspect and the death aspect because I suspect there's nothing in this film that could have been done to make it better for you.

    In that respect just wait for bond 26. That's the only thing I can tell you.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited October 2021 Posts: 7,958
    Zarozzor wrote: »
    You don't kill off a cash cow like this. There is nowhere to go now.

    The franchise needs a serious overhaul after this, a complete reboot, including the backroom team, because they have clearly run out of steam.

    This really a question directed at those who hold these sentiments rather than just you @jetsetwilly : Did you honestly believe that the next Bond actor would continue the version of Bond played by Craig, like how it used to be in the old days from Sean to Roger etc?

    If you had that expectation cemented in, I can now understand the confusion and frustration. Personally, I had already prepared myself for the idea that Craig’s run would be completely self contained and not have any carry over so that Craig’s version would have a definitive ending. No more Ralph Fiennes, no more Naomie Harris, Ben Whishaw, etc. I never expected any of this cast to play the role until they literally dropped dead like Bernard Lee and Desmond Llewelyn.

    I knew it was a possibility going in considering the whole Craig self contained angle. But the way they did it has just rubbed me the wrong way. A missile obliterating him from almost a POV angle of what he’s seeing? If they really wanted to go this route, I personally believe that a YOLT type of ending would have been satisfactory to more fans. Reading around various Bond forums, it seems that the fan base is around a 50/50 split about the way they did it.

    The problem is that a YOLT ending would have been more of a cliffhanger than a definitive ending. By giving Craig’s Bond a death, you not only complete his story but you allow the next Bond actor to forge on their own direction with zero baggage from Craig‘a run.
Sign In or Register to comment.